Oh man there’s so much fodder out there from which I could craft this post. Too much in fact. Do I rant about Congress sticking the Real ID legislation in the appropriations bill covering war and tsunami relief (and which also includes some potential dangerous homeland security clauses as noted in this story discovered via this post by Wil Wheaton. Of course in this day and age what doesn’t include dangerous homeland security clauses? Even my underwear includes a dangerous homeland security clause)?
Or maybe the current brouhaha in Canada over the effective if not explicit vote of no confidence in the Liberal government which they have chosen to ignore in favor of shiny bits of foil and golden retriever puppies? A story that was probably first posted about by MP Monte Solberg via his blackberry from the floor of parliament. The BBC has the current bit of “hunh?” available here, wherein the Prime Minister decides that instead of a vote which contained words declaring the outcome a reflection of confidence in the government being, you know, a reflection of confidence in the government, the budget vote next week will instead serve that purpose. So to vote him out he’s saying they have to vote no to paying the bills (the Democrats should pick him up in the next draft). As usual, Canadian columnist Colby Cosh has an opinion worth reading. Of course the craziness of Canadian politics was first brought to my attention by crazy Cerebus creator Dave Sim, whose multipart essay on the subject can normally be found here (but since the Cerebus Fangirl Site is not loading right now, here’s the google cache). Oh, and for those who have no clue how the Canadian Parliament works (well, as much as any parliament works), wikipedia is here to save the day.
Or maybe the new blip on the Gender Issues Radar? Via Mind Hacks, comes what I would imagine is a wonderful Edge debate on “The Science of Gender and Science”. I must admit to not yet having gone over the whole lengthy debate yet (due to lack of time), but given that this debate (conducted between Professors Pinker and Spelke of Harvard (yes, that Harvard)) comes from the same people that brought you the multitude of answers to “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?”, I trust that it won’t be a waste of time. (Though it is extensive and has video to watch, audio to hear, and text to read so I’ll understand if ya’ll don’t partake.)
Or maybe I’ll just realize that I’ve already written over 400 words and pointed ya’ll at some good material, so I can call it a day.